Sola Scriptura (continued)

[hvg3akaek]

If you read the text again, you can clearly see that Peter’s mistake was not in his teaching. The mistake was in his hypocrital behavior. Peter was not teaching anything contrary to what the Council of Jerusalem decided. His fault was in failing to follow the teaching himself. Barnabas was influenced by his behavior, which needed correction. The Church’s teaching on infallibility no where says that teachers do not err.

How do others learn, if not by teaching? Others followed him, so there must have been teaching - even if it was not in words, his actions could have spoken.

I am amazed that you would put yourself in the position to determine, of yourself, what constitutes “the fullness of time”. God of course, is able to take as much time as He sees fit to accomplish His will on earth, and is in no way answerable to your sense of timeliness!

i was not.
I merely pointed out how interesting it was that when the Bible says the Holy Spirit worked decisions, it happened quickly. When Roman Catholicism says the Holy Spirit works decisions, it seems to take much more time. Almost as if it were not the Spirit, but the men themselves, making the decisions.

I am not questioning Peter’s testimony. I am pointing out that it is his testimony that validates the scriptures. Even so, when he refers to "all " scripture, he is referring to what we know of as the “Old Testament” (Moses, Psalms, Prophets). The bible used by Jesus. The rest of the NT was not written yet when Peter made that statement.

Actually, I was referrig to the “he writes this way in all of his letters”

Exactly! And his peers and successors, to whom that information was faithfully passed down.

But what basis do we have for that?

Indeed! So much so that He can keep His promise that He will lead his Church into all truth.

…so why hasn’t it? Why was such a reformation allowed to occur?

 

[hvg3akaek]

Now we are getting somewhere!

John 21:15-17

Do you really think anyone could successfully “feed” ALL His sheep without the gift of infallibility [recall the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, Matt 16:18]?

So Peter could feed them all if he did have this gift of infallibility? Why the need for so many others then?

Honestly, why do you think Jesus SINGLED OUT Peter in Matthew 16:18, then took him on this walk and told him to basicailly, SHEPARD His flock?

because Peter had just denied Jesus three times, and so had renounced his discipleship. Jesus asked him three times, making up for the denials, to reinstate his discipleship.

Do you see Peter as a Shepard?

“A” and “shepherd” (lower case) - yes, as many ministers today are.

“The” or “Shepherd” - no. Only Jesus.

 

[hvg3akaek]

So do you give up your assertion that Scripture is inspired?

Not at all. Are you going to make a contrary assertion?

Without admitting its inspiration: 1 Tim 3:15.

Your claim, then is that 1 Tim 3:15 presents the Church as the standard against which traditions are to be measured?

No, I am sorry, I do not see that at all.

I don’t need to. I’m not trying to advance my position over yours. I’m not saying you are incorrect. Your supporting evidence is from the very thing you are trying to establish.

Which means I still need to accept your authority that you are correct. Yes?

Not at all
If you are not saying I am incorrect, then I will move on. If you do not challenge it, I have no reason to argue for it.

I refuted nothing so far. I just asked you to show me that Matthew was inspired. That’s all.

Of course you made those claims albeit indirectly You say the Bible inspired, which I take to include all 27 books of what you call the New Testament, including those three.

The Bible is inspired, yes. The Bible lists the books that are inspired, no.

 

[porthos11]

Not at all. Are you going to make a contrary assertion?

Nope. Let’s just say I don’t know whether it is inspired or not, and that I need convincing. I’m not trying to convince you that Scripture is not inspired. You are trying to convince me that it is.

Your claim, then is that 1 Tim 3:15 presents the Church as the standard against which traditions are to be measured?

No, I am sorry, I do not see that at all.

And I do. Now, whose interpretation must stand? Yours or mine?

Anyway, it’s not too relevant. 1 Tim 3:15, along with the rest of the NT, has not been shown to be inspired anyway.

But we’ve both used the “Word of God” and are convinced of our respective interpretations. You’re not infallible, and neither am I.

How do I know you’re right?

Not at all
If you are not saying I am incorrect, then I will move on. If you do not challenge it, I have no reason to argue for it.

Yes you do. According to your religion, your mission is to get poor hellbound souls like me saved. I am presenting myself to you as a hard-headed agnostic whom you will most likely encounter face-to-face. How can you get me to accept your Bible if you can’t even argue for it?

Believe me, you will get worse arguments from atheists than these I’m giving you. I’m keeping my arguments entirely within logic and reason, and even admitting to the existence of God.

** The Bible is inspired, yes**. The Bible lists the books that are inspired, no.

And still there is no basis for this statement outside of the Bible itself and your own word, which is what I’ve been asking for all this time. You ask us to take it for granted, but it’s that’s an intangible and subject to dispute. You say this, others say that.

So how can we take your word that those 39 and only those 39 books belong to the inspired OT and those 27 and only those 27 books belong to the inspired NT? Why not the 72 pushed by Catholics? Or the 80 pushed by the Orthodox?

You claim no authority for yourself, yet you insist that we believe you. But why should we believe when you say that these books are the Bible? You have no authority to make such a statement; you said it yourself. But the Bible cannot be used to prove its own authority without logical fallacy, which is contrary to reason.

“The Bible says” means nothing to those who don’t accept its authority.

 

[mayra_hart]

**Some Tough Questions for ProtestantsProvide the verse(s) which:

• Say(s) God created the world/universe out of nothing,
• Say(s) Scripture is the sole authority (i.e., there is no other authority for learning about God and/or salvation),
• Say(s) salvation is attainable through faith alone,
• Tell(s) us how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle,
• Provide(s) a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament,
• Provide(s) a list of the canonical books of the New Testament,
• Explain(s) the doctrine of the Trinity,
• Tell(s) us the name of the “beloved disciple”,
• Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew,
• Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of Mark,
• Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of Luke,
• Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of John,
• Contain(s) the name of the author of the Acts of the Apostles,
• Tell(s) us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity,
• Tell(s) us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception (e.g. how do we know His Divinity wasn’t infused later in His life?) and/or tells us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures, human and Divine and not some other combination of the two natures (i.e., one or both being less than complete),
• Tell(s) us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father. now bible expert show me with the bible ok May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen."
  
  **

 

[hvg3akaek]

Nope. Let’s just say I don’t know whether it is inspired or not, and that I need convincing. I’m not trying to convince you that Scripture is not inspired. You are trying to convince me that it is.

If you don’t argue against it, I have no further need to run in circles with you

And I do. Now, whose interpretation must stand? Yours or mine?

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Nothing there makes any mention of standards or measuring.
Thus, you need to do some more groundwork

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

That, however, does talk about measuring. It says that the Bereans examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. Sounds like a good standard to me.

I am presenting myself to you as a hard-headed agnostic whom you will most likely encounter face-to-face.

But you are not, so I will not waste my time with it.

I would rather put it to good use talking to actual atheists and agnostics.

And no, I would not start with the inspiration of the Bible with them, either.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Some Tough Questions for ProtestantsProvide the verse(s) which:

Not sure what your purpose is here, but hoping it is legitimate, and not just making others run around in circles for you, here you go:

(do note that answering these in no wa means I accept that I ever claimed any of them )

Say(s) God created the world/universe out of nothing,

Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16

Say(s) Scripture is the sole authority (i.e., there is no other authority for learning about God and/or salvation),

Not there. Nor is there a verse that claims that my imaginary pet dog isn’t authoritative.
2 Timothy 3:16 does, however, say that it is authoritative.

Say(s) salvation is attainable through faith alone,

Ephesians 2:8-9

Tell(s) us how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle,

None that I know of. Where does it say it continues? Where does it say that my imaginary dog Charlie cannot give revelation?

Provide(s) a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament,

Obviously not in the Bible

Provide(s) a list of the canonical books of the New Testament,

Obviously not in the Bible

Explain(s) the doctrine of the Trinity,

oh, you want “explanations” now? where is the verse that explains purgatory? Mary’s sinlessness? Mary’s perpetual virginity? Indulgences?

hey, where are the verses that even back up the above? Not that can be read not to disagree, but actually back them up?

Matthew 28:19 backs up the Trinity, no?

Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew,

Matthew 9:9 (compare to Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27)

Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of Mark,

Acts 15:39?

Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of Luke,

Colossians 4:14

Tell(s) us the name of the “beloved disciple”,

Contain(s) the name of the author of the Gospel of John,

Matthew 10:2

Contain(s) the name of the author of the Acts of the Apostles,

Colossians 4:14

Tell(s) us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity,

Matthew 28:19, Matthew 28:19, John 14:26

Tell(s) us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception (e.g. how do we know His Divinity wasn’t infused later in His life?) and/or tells us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures, human and Divine and not some other combination of the two natures (i.e., one or both being less than complete),

Colossians 1:16, Philippians 2:7

Tell(s) us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father.

Philippians 2:6

 

[porthos11]

If you don’t argue against it, I have no further need to run in circles with you

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Nothing there makes any mention of standards or measuring.
Thus, you need to do some more groundwork

“Pillar and foundation” sounds like an authoritative standard to me.

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

And their Scriptures were what: The Septuagint Old Testament (the Bereans were Hellenists). Not the New Testament, which had not been written yet.

That, however, does talk about measuring. It says that the Bereans examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. Sounds like a good standard to me.

But you are not, so I will not waste my time with it.

I would rather put it to good use talking to actual atheists and agnostics.

And no, I would not start with the inspiration of the Bible with them, either.

Okay, end of story.

Since you are ending this discussion with me, I therefore conclude that the Bible’s inspiration cannot be proven through reason and requires the Bible itself and an interpreter such as yourself for it to be established as such.

I therefore reject Sola Scriptura as self-defeating and contrary to reason and logic.

 

[NotWorthy]

Colossians 4:14

OK, good. It names Luke. But it doesn’t say that Luke is the author of Acts.
*** Luke the beloved physician sends greetings, as does Demas.***

 

[hvg3akaek]

“Pillar and foundation” sounds like an authoritative standard to me.

sounds more like a basis, a start, to me. What is on the pillar, what is held by the foundation, that is important thing.

The Bible, God’s true word, that is the thing of importance.

And their Scriptures were what: The Septuagint Old Testament (the Bereans were Hellenists). Not the New Testament, which had not been written yet.And if they can do so with the OT, how much more can we do it with the full Bible?

I therefore reject Sola Scriptura as self-defeating and contrary to reason and logic.

No, you reject it because you rely on your Traditions. Which you would claim are backed up in your bible. Which is read through the Traditions…

 

[hvg3akaek]

OK, good. It names Luke. But it doesn’t say that Luke is the author of Acts.
*** Luke the beloved physician sends greetings, as does Demas.***

That was not the question The question was for a verse containing the name of the author of Luke, and thus I provided

 

[porthos11]

sounds more like a basis, a start, to me. What is on the pillar, what is held by the foundation, that is important thing.

The Bible, God’s true word, that is the thing of importance.

And if they can do so with the OT, how much more can we do it with the full Bible?

They didn’t have the full Bible. They had the Greek OT, which you reject, by the way, and Paul’s oral Tradition, which was presented as the Word of God too.

No, you reject it because you rely on your Traditions. Which you would claim are backed up in your bible. Which is read through the Traditions…

More like I reject it because it’s a 16th-century fabrication that’s not supportable by history or reason. If you could have supported Sola Scriptura through reason alone you would already have done so without appealing to the Bible’s authority, which you always do. That means I also need to accept YOUR authority. That in itself contradicts Sola Scriptura: it’s more like Scripture and YOUR tradition, because your arguments require me to believe YOUR interpretation of the Bible.

So, yes I reject Sola Scriptura as contrary to reason. And if I reject Sola Scriptura, there is no reason to reject Tradition.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Sorry for the delay. It is really busy for me right now, so I will respond when I can.

You asked:
How do you know that the Bible is inspired? How do you know what books to include and which not to include?

You quoted:
…once again: compliance with the scriptures. (that is, OT).
Eye witness accounts.
Things written by people who were there.
Accurate historical documents.
Lack of disagreement in the early church (that is, up to ~100AD)

I still don’t fully understand your perspective. You said this list wasn’t a checklist but just part of general guidelines (am I understanding you correctly?). Also, not every Christian has had access to knowing some or all of these criteria. For instance, it has been assumed that the New Testament accounts were historically accurate, but back in say the 1600s there was no way to prove it. Their accuracy was (and still is to an extent) taken on faith and not on Biblical passages.

Is believing Mary was a Perpetual Virgin necessary for salvation?

Yes.

For that matter, is having the bible in its fullness necessary for salvation?

No.

It is a different claim to say “Only X is needed for salvation” and “X and only X is needed for salvation”.

I don’t understand what you are asking here.

I think you answered part of your own question there - there are (and there were) Jews who did believe it. Just as today, there are non-Christians who hear the message and believe.

Look back throughout the Old Testament, and see how well the Israelites did in obeying God. If they kept failing then, when He had His presence with them in their temple, what makes you think they wouldn’t fail when Jesus appeared?

But the Jews were always faithful when God was present in camp (e.g. dwelling in the Tabernacle.

But, the fullness of God’s Revelation isn’t in the Old Testament. There is much there in embryonic form - like the Trinity - which we can see looking back with the fullness of Revelation and see, but it wasn’t totally clear until the entirety of Revelation was completely given.

I heard this analogy on these boards a little while ago and I like it. Remember the movie the Sixth Sense. At the very end you find out that Bruce Willis was dead the whole time, it is obvious then. You rewatch the movie, and you see that there were clues the whole time, but you never could make it out until you were told at the end. And knowing the end, you can never go back and view it with quite the same viewpoint as when you didn’t know the end.

We do indeed, but that did not stop Paul from reasoning with Jews from the scriptures (Acts 17:2). Nor did it stop Apollos from debating with the Jews, “proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:28).

And there is alot that we can reason from the Scriptures. But not everything.

For sure, put them out there for pondering But thinking too long on them might not be the best idea.

After all, we are talking about our God, who can inspire people to write what He wills. I have no problem thinking that Paul never heard the news from other humans until he had been preaching for a while and met them in Jerusalem. Jesus can give him everything he needed.

Similarly, it is more than possible that Mark and Luke both had their ‘gaps’ filled in with God’s Spirit dictating to them. I am not saying that it happened, but why could it not have happened?

Absolutely ponder further. If the answers aren’t known, then the questions can be legitamately asked It would make great fodder for another thread.

It may indeed. Why don’t you start a thread on whether the OT is inspired or not?

If I get around to it I may.

Not a lit, I would think. Fortunately, I was not discussing the foreign drinking market, but ‘agreements within the church’. Yes, they had disagreements. But “did Paul write this letter?” was not one of them. (or at least, not a serious one). Thus, I am quite satisfied to claim that Paul did indeed write it.

Was that criterion on your list about disagreeing on authorship? I thought is was just plain disagreements, like on doctrine.

 

[JMJ_coder]

continued…

So what makes you think that the NIV is poor? What verses in particular are you unhappy with?

An analysis for this translation deserves its own thread.

Well, with the rapid changes that are happening with english these days, I would not disagree with that. however, so what? The point is that any translation based on a translation is not going to be as good as a translation based on the original. Why? Because you are no longer translating the original writer’s words and meanings, but what someone else thinks are the original writer’s words and meanings.

Then why bother with the translation of the original, since you are also running into the same issue. We should all just become fluent in Greek and Hebrew and Syriac and we’ll all be happy.

Interesting. But that is not the succession…as the papal succession is meant to be for life, no? That is, when one of the apostles died, someone should have filled in his role. Thus there should be 12/13 positions higher than the other ordained bishops.

Not a completely accurate portrait of Apostolic Succession. You are confusing a bit succession via Episcopal Ordination and succession via shepherding a particular Church, commonly called a diocese. You may find this interesting:

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

 

[SPH1]

Your question seems to assume that there are “right” and “wrong” churches. Coming from a black-and-white Roman Catholic stance, that is understandable. But it is not correct…

So, when that occurs, we will find a new church - will that be one under the name of ‘anglican’? Possibly. But that wont stop us from seeing other denominations. I mean, what in the end does it matter if you are baptised as a baby or adult? What does it matter what you call the ministers? Are these things going to affect our salvation?

No, as long as the church teaches from God’s word, it is a viable option!

You did not answer my question, how you determine who is right or wrong within Protestantism. But you do allude to the chaos within various Protestant dogma, and I can see why you cannot answer.

And, do you think I will go to hell because I do not accept Mary’s ‘perpetual virginity’?

Since you’re asking me, IMO you are in serious, grave danger for willfully rejecting the Holy Catholic Church.

Such as Peter teaching others, including Barnabas? They were all led astray.

Remember - teaching is not just in writing or in words. Actions also teach

This is your anti-Catholic/Peter bias. Peter wasn’t “teaching”, the fact that everyone, including Pauls’ man Barnabas, followed Peter’s lead shows Peter’s position in the Church, and as I’ve already shown, Christ himself preordained Peter’s faithful service unto Peter’s death. You ignore this.

You seem to forget what Peter did previously. He, three times, denied Jesus. He felt pretty darn bad. Now, Jesus asks him three times if he loves him. (theres the whole greek thing about different loves used by Jesus and Peter which I will not go into here) Three times, to make up for the three times of denial.

I didn’t forget anything, you did by willfully failing to use Luke. Christ looked to a final conversion for Peter, so what went before has no applicability afterward. Furthermore, Peter’s “denials” were for our benefit: Peter denied Christ, yet went to his death for Christ. Peter changed his mind, helping to prove the resurrection.

This was not saying “You are the big boss now, and other big bosses will follow after you”.

Yes, it was.

This was Jesus reinstating him as a disciple!

Your error here is believing that Peter (or any of the disciples who fled) lost their discipleship.

 

[hvg3akaek]

They didn’t have the full Bible. They had the Greek OT, which you reject, by the way, and Paul’s oral Tradition, which was presented as the Word of God too.

No more than I reject the KJV.

So, yes I reject Sola Scriptura as contrary to reason. And if I reject Sola Scriptura, there is no reason to reject Tradition.

Oh yeah, and that’s not cyclic… Come on, try the other shoe - if you want your Tradition, tell me why I should accept it.

 

[porthos11]

No more than I reject the KJV.

Yes, you reject the Greek Bible, otherwise you would have at least 46 books in the Old Testament.

Oh yeah, and that’s not cyclic… Come on, try the other shoe - if you want your Tradition, tell me why I should accept it.

No it’s not cyclic because I haven’t defended Tradition, only rejected Sola Scriptura. I said I don’t accept the authority of the Bible, and I don’t grant the authority of Tradition to define the Bible’s list of inspired books. That would be two-way circular logic.

So no I’m not trying to convince you to accept Tradition. For all you know, I reject it too. But this thread started out with the presupposition of “The Bible is inspired”, a premise never supported by reason, not by you or by Timmy Z, the original poster. You simply wanted us to take your words at face value, something we are unwilling to do. So you resort to the Bible to prove the Bible.

So that said, for this thread, unless you can appeal to normal human reason, I am forced to reject the premise that Scripture is inspired, and therefore reject Sola Scriptura.

I’m making it easier for you. I also initially reject Tradition as an inspired source of revelation too. So I appeal to neither Scripture nor Tradition. If Catholics want to prove Tradition they are in the same boat as you.

So there. Scripture is not inspired, Tradition is also not inspired. I accept neither. All I want from you is the proof that Scripture is inspired, using fact and reason alone.

As I said, you would have already done so 4 pages ago if you could.

But you can’t, can you?

Because of you, I’m rejecting your Bible, and I’m rejecting your religion. You are failing to get me saved.

 

[hvg3akaek]

I still don’t fully understand your perspective. You said this list wasn’t a checklist but just part of general guidelines (am I understanding you correctly?).

Yep, that’s right.

Also, not every Christian has had access to knowing some or all of these criteria. For instance, it has been assumed that the New Testament accounts were historically accurate, but back in say the 1600s there was no way to prove it. Their accuracy was (and still is to an extent) taken on faith and not on Biblical passages.

Yup, correct

hvg3: Is believing Mary was a Perpetual Virgin necessary for salvation?
you: Yes.

hvg3: For that matter, is having the bible in its fullness necessary for salvation?
you: No.

I am sorry, how do they fit together? Or are you meaning that without the Bible, you just have Traditions?

but, just so we are perfectly clear - you are expecting me to go to hell, if I don’t change my views?

I don’t understand what you are asking here.

I wasn’t asking, just stating “Scripture Alone” does no mean “Scripture, and Scripture Alone”. The first means you can be saved without Scripture, the second one means you cannot.

I heard this analogy on these boards a little while ago and I like it. Remember the movie the Sixth Sense. At the very end you find out that Bruce Willis was dead the whole time, it is obvious then. You rewatch the movie, and you see that there were clues the whole time, but you never could make it out until you were told at the end. And knowing the end, you can never go back and view it with quite the same viewpoint as when you didn’t know the end.

At the end of time, it will be like that Jesus, however, was not so an ‘apparent’ reveal.

And there is alot that we can reason from the Scriptures. But not everything.

Why not?

Was that criterion on your list about disagreeing on authorship? I thought is was just plain disagreements, like on doctrine.

It was both.

Then why bother with the translation of the original, since you are also running into the same issue. We should all just become fluent in Greek and Hebrew and Syriac and we’ll all be happy

Its a lot easier to translate the Bible into a language than it is to teach everyone of that language Greek and Hebrew? Plus, you have to keep teaching every new generation that…

 

[hvg3akaek]

You did not answer my question, how you determine who is right or wrong within Protestantism. But you do allude to the chaos within various Protestant dogma, and I can see why you cannot answer.

My answer is that your question is incorrect, and rests on a faulty assumption. That is why I cannot answer

Since you’re asking me, IMO you are in serious, grave danger for willfully rejecting the Holy Catholic Church.

Thankyou. Although, you didn’t answer my question

This is your anti-Catholic/Peter bias. Peter wasn’t “teaching”, the fact that everyone, including Pauls’ man Barnabas, followed Peter’s lead shows Peter’s position in the Church, and as I’ve already shown, Christ himself preordained Peter’s faithful service unto Peter’s death. You ignore this.

I have nothing against Peter I have something against the exalted image the Roman Catholic Traditions holds of him.

You ignore that it was Paul who corrected Peter. Surely this suggests that Paul had a higher role than Peter?

Your error here is believing that Peter (or any of the disciples who fled) lost their discipleship.

your error here, and the rest of your post, is your failure to provide any backing to your opposing ideas. You believe them. Fine. But why should I?

 

[hvg3akaek]

Yes, you reject the Greek Bible, otherwise you would have at least 46 books in the Old Testament.

No, I reject some of the boks others have slipped into the Greek Bible

So no I’m not trying to convince you to accept Tradition. For all you know, I reject it too. But this thread started out with the presupposition of “The Bible is inspired”, a premise never supported by reason, not by you or by Timmy Z, the original poster. You simply wanted us to take your words at face value, something we are unwilling to do. So you resort to the Bible to prove the Bible.

And yet, you believe it, and can offer no reason apart from my suggestion of Tradition, which you, yourself, admit would be two-way circular logic.

You throw out one idea because of what you see as circular logic, but accept another, despite of it.

Because of you, I’m rejecting your Bible, and I’m rejecting your religion. You are failing to get me saved.

No, it is not because of me, but you. You are choosing to reject it, and you cannot shift the blame for your actions onto another.

And no, I am not failing to get you saved, as I cannot get you saved. I can only plant the seed or water it. It is God that grows it.